Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Government clubs could work

Why isn't liberty more popular? Every libertarian eventually ponders this question.

The answers they arrive at vary. Some are negative-- people are lazy, cowardly, don't want responsibility, and are addicted to theft and bullying. Some, slightly nicer-- people don't understand liberty because they have been indoctrinated against it, or they don't realize they lack it after a lifetime of being told they are free.

I suspect a mix of all the above.

Self responsibility is hard. The easy way is to let someone else be responsible for you-- like a child or a slave does. Liberty can also be scary. If you are responsible for yourself, who can you blame when you make a poor choice, or when something bad happens?

Some people do rely on theft and aggression. Not exclusively in government, of course, but those who are freelance face a greater risk of painful consequences. They lack government's public relations success at making victims docile.

It's time to mature. While it's up to you to make it happen, liberty offers everything you ever wanted.

Unless you want to push people around and take their stuff. In that case you are out of luck.

However, I can see a way even those people could become productive members of society. It would just take a little creativity, and presents exciting market opportunities.

There are fantasy football leagues, and mixed martial arts matches, so how about fantasy governing and "government clubs" for those who can't break the addiction?

With fantasy governing leagues, the lust to govern could be satisfied, but for the first time in history, no innocents would be harmed.

If hands-on is your style, real life government clubs could provide members-- with explicit informed consent-- the opportunity to practice all the statecraft they desire, while keeping the theft and aggression inside the club.

Each club could have a president, congresscritters, judges, scandals, and elections. If no one wanted to accept the lowly position, virtual citizens could be designed into the game. People who govern dislike encountering free-range citizens, anyway.

Government clubs could trade, use spies and diplomats and terrorists, and start wars between themselves, and no one outside the club would be bothered. It's Live Action Role Playing for former politicians and their fans.

I think it could work, leaving liberty unmolested for the rest of us. Humans could once again have a chance to aspire to greatness, unburdened by the dead weight of the parasite class. Maybe liberty would become more popular after giving the politically inclined this outlet.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and hear your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.

4 comments:

Probably. But you'd need to be playing against other real people to fill the need to beat someone. If that game doesn't have that feature, it would need to be added.Probably, limiting it to "democracy" isn't the best idea either. Let there be dick-taters ;) and kings and prime ministers and whatever else people want to have for their "country". I wanted to address that in the column, but I was already stretching the word limit.

Validation

I'm not actively soliciting donations (or subscriptions) right now... oh, who am I kidding? Yes, please, donate or subscribe. It may be silly but it makes me feel like all the work that goes into this is valued by others and is worth the effort. Thanks.